Admin Notice: Community Rules Rewrite - Phase 3

[Anaximander]

Honestly I don't see it as complaining, I see it as legitimate concerns - which for large parts haven't been addressed but just brushed off as 'complaints'. I think you should take a more mature stance, really, rather than slag off the players that raised the concerns. Afterall it's in the topic title - "Community Rules" - so you should respect that at least parts of the community have concerns.

If this is about some specific situation, like that of Wilde in the past that complained everyone went "red is dead" on them on basis of the ID, couldn't we have found a more delicate solution?

[Thyrzul]

I would've gone with "Use your common sense", but since according to Thyrzul no one in this community has any, it seems that one's not an option, which is why I'm gonna go with "Go play the actual game, get used to the changes, then come complaining" because I actually find it funny how every single change gets most of its rage around here during its first week, when no one has even tried those changes out ingame to actually get a hang of them. (Saw someone in conn complaining about how useless the new sair torp is, less than 12 hours after the release. That one was fun.)

Not just according to me, dude, didn't you just have to explain the community what this whole is about? Because we got oh so common sense. I don't really find too much common in thinking of different ways to solve an issue. And I don't want to get into trouble because I thought of solving this one a bit differently than you guys imagined and put me into Bastille for a possible mistake on my side resulting in this vague interpretation and sudden complexity of rules.

Want creativity? Here you got us, a bunch actually brainstorming and looking for possible loopholes through hypothetical situations without even having the need to get in-game. But if you want me to "go play the actual game" so much, why not? Meet me in-game at FP6 and bring a spare Council ID. I got a GJ ID/IFF Collector nearby (set up and put there even before these latest changes), we'll see how "bulletproof" the new rules are.

Far as server rules are concerned, the ID item equipped on the ship does not exist within the roleplay environment of the server. Anything past that point neither concerns the rules nor is enforced in any way and is entirely up to each character's individual roleplay. No one's forcing you to play along with another player's "roleplayed ID", and no one's forcing you to even look for an ID in the first place. So if you don't like following the example I provided on how the ID can actually be roleplayed, simply don't.

Could you please clarify then what am I supposed to do if 1.3 forbids me to act by the ID of an other player, while Faction Right 1 specifies identification partially by same ID? Which ID? "Roleplayed ID" or the actual ID, how am I supposed to guess? Use my common sense, eh? Will you promise me I won't get sanctioned if I actually manage to screw up and break rules simply by following those same rules, my common sense and your vague guidelines?

How about answering my concerns instead of marking them as "QQ" and ignoring entirely? I am kinda agreeing with Anax here (holy hell, that's the second time now, the end must be near...), you could provide a bit more mature picture of yourself if you would actually show a little bit of interest about concerns raised in regards of your work. I don't want to sound ungrateful, you guys in the Admin Team do a lot for the community, but then again, this kind of "slag off" is not really what I would expect in return for pointing out possible exploits.

---

[Zayne Carrick]

With the rewrite of the faction rules, the 30 hours activity requirement is removed, however, factions with less than 5 active members may still be stripped of their official status when necessary - That being when a new faction applies for official status on the same ID, or if a faction goes by for a considerable time with nearly no participation in the server gameplay.

Cryer stays official?
npnpnp

/thread

[aerelm]

How about answering my concerns instead of marking them as "QQ" and ignoring entirely? I am kinda agreeing with Anax here (holy hell, that's the second time now, the end must be near...), you could provide a bit more mature picture of yourself if you would actually show a little bit of interest about concerns raised in regards of your work. I don't want to sound ungrateful, you guys in the Admin Team do a lot for the community, but then again, this kind of "slag off" is not really what I would expect in return for pointing out possible exploits.

Yes, I often forget people in this community are highly allergic to words such as "complain" and would instantly assume it was meant in the same manner as "QQ" even when not, so pardon my poor choice of words and do kindly reread my previous post while replacing any equivalents of "complain" with "valid concern raised too early and hence with no grounds, experience or examples from the actual server gameplay to back it up".

In other words, I'm neither ignoring your <insert any word that means the same thing as "valid complaint and not QQ" and doesnt offend you>, and nor am I looking at it as whining, but same as a good number of other changes made since the 4.87 release, the team responsible (Be it devs or admins, depending on the change) is simply waiting to see the actual impact of these changes on the server gameplay, rather than using the speculations made less than a day after the implementation of the change to come to a conclusion on whether or not the change was actually productive or if the community is not ready or suitable for such drastic changes.

Therefor, the longer people refuse to leave their comfort zones and actually try and adjust to the new ruleset, the longer it'd take for us to actually come to a conclusion regarding these new changes, and since nothing is set in stone and the intent behind these rules rewrite is to make the server gameplay more flexible, less tense and simpler to understand and adjust to for newer players, in the end the wellbeing of the community is the only thing taken into account and if the community actually finds such a change less beneficial than we hoped, it can certainly be reverted back to normal, but do excuse me if I'm so immature that I simply choose not to drag this subject deeper and deeper into the endless hole of pointless discussion which some members so passionately dig day and night before we have actually reached such a stage where discussing it would be based on how it has worked out in the actual game, rather than how we each see it possibly turning out with our limited point of view.

P.S: This post and my earlier reply are essentially saying the same thing, and this one just overuses the formal tone and has longer paragraphs which to me, makes it sound less serious than the other one, so whether or not a reply is mature mostly depends on how it's read, not how it's written. Alternatively, I might just go with changing my forum sig to "No offense, sarcasm, condescension or disagreement intended. Please read what I've actually written rather than fixating on a single word and writing a wall of text about it which really has nothing to do with the actual subject of discussion. Thank you". That might solve a few problems.

P.P.S: Just because I end up being the miserable soul who has to post the public announcement about something, doesn't mean I was actually the one taking care of it. This is something you and the community seem to forget even more than I forget what I said I forget in the first paragraph of this very same post.

[Lonely Werewolf]

11. Any freelancer or BHG individual or group may only collect on a bounty which that person or group has issued, sponsored or funded (fully or partly) so long as it is open to others to collect. All non-generic factions may sponsor internal bounties that are only open to members of the player or NPC faction.

How about changing that to and. Being part of NPC faction should make you valid for bounty claim, which was posted by official/unofficial faction of your affiliation.
This would disallow totally-internal bounties and open up the chance for indies to be part of it.

How about no? The internal bounties doesn't grant any additional engagement privileges, you can still only engage targets as you could if there was no bounty on their head. So what internal bounties are, is just a way of recognising and rewarding kills made by the faction (or if they like in extension to the rest of the NPC faction). If a faction wants to set up an internal reward system for kills it's members makes, that is perfectly fine, but that is all it is, a way of recording and rewarding your own kills. If a faction wants to do this, they should not be forced to accept other players into this particular scheme if they don't want to. If that is the case, it is kind of meaningless, maybe instead said faction would just dish out the cash to it's own members who post the kills over Skype.

---

Information | Recruitment | Message Dump | Roster | Feedback

[Thyrzul]

Yes, I often forget people in this community are highly allergic to words such as "complain" and would instantly assume it was meant in the same manner as "QQ" even when not, so pardon my poor choice of words and do kindly reread my previous post while replacing any equivalents of "complain" with "valid concern raised too early and hence with no grounds, experience or examples from the actual server gameplay to back it up".

In other words, I'm neither ignoring your <insert any word that means the same thing as "valid complaint and not QQ" and doesnt offend you>, and nor am I looking at it as whining, but same as a good number of other changes made since the 4.87 release, the team responsible (Be it devs or admins, depending on the change) is simply waiting to see the actual impact of these changes on the server gameplay, rather than using the speculations made less than a day after the implementation of the change to come to a conclusion on whether or not the change was actually productive or if the community is not ready or suitable for such drastic changes.

Oh, okay, so what is the point of this post? If you don't ignore my points, why don't you address them then?. How about instead of continuously avoiding my concerns with "go play the game", you tell me why they are invalid or why my hypothetical scenarios improbable? You know... like actually answering my questions and raised concerns... Regardless of how early my points might be, I may be able to learn more from counters to them rather than from "sugar-coated gtfo-s" worded in a civilized manner. Or would you rather be reactive than proactive? Thinking beforehand could save you a lot of time, and that is what I'm trying to help you with.

Therefor, the longer people refuse to leave their comfort zones and actually try and adjust to the new ruleset, the longer it'd take for us to actually come to a conclusion regarding these new changes, and since nothing is set in stone and the intent behind these rules rewrite is to make the server gameplay more flexible, less tense and simpler to understand and adjust to for newer players, in the end the wellbeing of the community is the only thing taken into account and if the community actually finds such a change less beneficial than we hoped, it can certainly be reverted back to normal, but do excuse me if I'm so immature that I simply choose not to drag this subject deeper and deeper into the endless hole of pointless discussion which some members so passionately dig day and night before we have actually reached such a stage where discussing it would be based on how it has worked out in the actual game, rather than how we each see it possibly turning out with our limited point of view.

The problem is that the more flexible a system becomes, the more complex it will be as well, and it will have a lot of gaps if you don't address all instances. I myself am not against a bit of complexity, I was kind of fine with the new roles of IDs and IFFs, but then you guys (the Admin Team, not just you) came with this new "Pilot ID" and that certain "Who says it's not roleplay?" line kinda screwed up without any explaination on from when it will become powergaming. And I asked you and you didn't answer. My question won't change if I get in-game, the situation I am worried about will be the same, regardless if I'm saying it out here or in there. And if my point of view is limited, please make an attempt to extend it with yours. We are here to discuss possible issues after all, aren't we?

Please read what I've actually written rather than fixating on a single word and writing a wall of text about it which really has nothing to do with the actual subject of discussion.

If "fixating on a single word and wriging a wall of text about it" is the only thing you got from my earlier post, I feel sorry for you, and I really hope it won't be the case with this one.

---

[McNeo]

Looks like my characters are going to be doing a whole lot of "I dont believe you and Im willing to bet my career on it" with people trying to hide behind fake pilot IDs and visible IFFs.

I wouldn't have a problem with this premise, except -

1. Your pilot ID is on your person, which happens to actually be in your ship. Saying that it's on your person which makes it immune to ship scanners is akin to saying a metal rod in your leg shouldn't be detected by a metal detector because it's in your body rather than on your person.

2. There is no way to provide a pilot ID that's fake or real to another player ingame through provided game mechanics. This means that people will develop vastly different understandings of this system, which will result in most player interactions being chaotic and of low RP value.

3. There is no cost to faking your pilot ID and, assuming people believed your fake pilot ID simply saying whatever is required to get you by is the best course of action. It costs nothing to change your fake pilot ID since I assume you just use words to do so, which cost nothing. Therefore, most encounters will look something like this:

4. If everybody played along, frustration would grow, which is why I wont and neither should you. Say its fake when it is, saying that you don't believe them, and have the interaction you'd have if you could still see the ID mounted on the ship.

[Highland Laddie]

How about.....IFF must match ID.... problem solved (both in-game and hypothetically).

[Ursus]

How about.....IFF must match ID.... problem solved (both in-game and hypothetically).

works for everything except the generic IDs

The necessary prerequisite to this change was to force IFF on Freelancer and Pirate ID ships. That wasnt done, now we have a big hole in the ground that you either throw RP into or step around as you are able.

---

Discovery 24/7 Negotiating Tactics:

[.Gypsy.]

What does IFF stand for?

---